AVS Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Your are complaining to the wrong people.


Many of the HDMI problems can be traced to the HDCP that was forced on us by the paranoid content providers who worried that someone, somewhere might try to make digital copies. Of course, that has no real affect on the serious pirate duplicators who make dozens of copies. It just fouled it up for the rest of us, who don't make copies or might want to make a copy for our own use. The HDMI organization is just marching to the content provider orders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
The problem is, that if you want to go all digital, then the content providers require some form of HDCP. All the content receiver manufacturers settled on HDMI with HDCP as the digital standard to use. So it's the content receiver manufacturers, rather than the HDMI org who has forced HDMI on us.


Many of the problems with distributing the HDMI content to multiple receivers has to do with the HDCP handshake protocol failures. So from that point-of-view HDMI perhaps needs some improvement. Although much of the problem may be with poor implementation of the HDCP handshake with multiple receivers, rather then deficiencies in the protocol itself.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by crutschow /forum/post/19542340


The problem is, that if you want to go all digital, then the content providers require some form of HDCP. All the content receiver manufacturers settled on HDMI with HDCP as the digital standard to use. So it's the content receiver manufacturers, rather than the HDMI org who has forced HDMI on us.


Many of the problems with distributing the HDMI content to multiple receivers has to do with the HDCP handshake protocol failures. So from that point-of-view HDMI perhaps needs some improvement. Although much of the problem may be with poor implementation of the HDCP handshake with multiple receivers, rather then deficiencies in the protocol itself.

Author deleted comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19540423


With all the problems that HDMI still has, why are you forcing this on people with the analog sunset?

The analog sunset is a licensing requirement of AACS .


Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19541999


However, doesn't the HDMI org have some control over how their cable (patent is with the HDMI Org, right?) is used?

Not in regards to HDCP which is managed by a different organization. Companies could technically build DisplayPort/HDMI products that lack HDCP but those products wouldn't be able to access content that is protected by HDCP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19550221


Very HDMI Org-self seving answer since that org didn't have to do that.

If the the HDMI organization had made HDMI so it wouldn't work with HDCP their digital interface would have failed and some other digital interface that supported HDCP would have become the standard in the CE industry. Also both DisplayPort and DVI support HDCP so all of the major digital interfaces support HDCP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19550221


I predict forcing people to use HDMI for HD on Blu-Ray will be the reason that used Blu-Ray product prices go up. Maybe I should thank the HDMI Org for that!

AACS licensing terms allow for Blu-ray players that output HD video over component video to be sold until the end of 2011. As such we won't know how much of an effect it will have on the price of used Blu-ray players until 2012. It is likely that a good number of people will be angry about the AACS analog sunset ( which I posted about in June of 2009 ) but if you are going to complain about the AACS licensing terms it would be logical to complain to the AACS LA .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul /forum/post/19555649



AACS licensing terms allow for Blu-ray players that output HD video over component video to be sold until the end of 2011. As such we won't know how much of an effect it will have on the price of used Blu-ray players until 2012. It is likely that a good number of people will be angry about the AACS analog sunset ( which I posted about in June of 2009 ) but if you are going to complain about the AACS licensing terms it would be logical to complain to the AACS LA .

Author deleted comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19560524


Can you provide a reference/link to the "end of 2011" as the sunset start? I was under the impression it was December 31, 2010 (33 days from today) not 2012 base3d on reading previous AACS agreements. If AACS allowed an extra year that *might* mitigate some of the concerns as long as HDMI Version 1.50 doesn't appear in the meantime. However, even this link you provided above shows 33 days from today as d-day.

Read the "2.2.2.1 Analog Sunset - 2010" paragraph and you will see that two dates are mentioned. The AACS licensing terms require that no new stand alone Blu-ray player models released after December 31, 2010 support the output of HD video over component video but does allow existing stand alone Blu-ray player models to continue to be manafactured/sold by AACS adopters until December 31, 2011.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul /forum/post/19560883


Read the "2.2.2.1 Analog Sunset – 2010" paragraph and you will see that two dates are mentioned. The AACS licensing terms require that no new stand alone Blu-ray player models released after December 31, 2010 support the output of HD video over component video but does allow existing stand alone Blu-ray player models to continue to be manafactured/sold by AACS adopters until December 31, 2011.

Author deleted comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19561758


Actually that is even worse since any player released (OK, manufactured) in 2011 will be neutered. By July 2011, a typical consumer will not know whether the component video ports are HD or not HD.

I wouldn't consider it to be worse since existing stand alone Blu-ray players should be available through the end of next year but it will certainly be confusing to the average consumer. I would guess that new stand alone Blu-ray player models that are released next year will have some kind of disclaimer about not supporting HD output over component video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/19561758


BTW, on your earlier comment concerning AACS, there was no law requiring that they force-neuter the component video ports. It's just corporate paranoia.

Sure, and there is no logical reason to continue with the analog sunset since AACS and BD+ have been broken but when have the major studios ever backed down on copy protection just because it didn't make sense? As such I wouldn't be surprised if the major studios enforce the AACS licensing terms on the analog sunset even though there is no good reason to do so.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul /forum/post/19565807


I wouldn't consider it to be worse since existing stand alone Blu-ray players should be available through the end of next year but it will certainly be confusing to the average consumer. I would guess that new stand alone Blu-ray player models that are released next year will have some kind of disclaimer about not supporting HD output over component video.

Author deleted comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by crutschow /forum/post/19541646


Your are complaining to the wrong people.


Many of the HDMI problems can be traced to the HDCP that was forced on us by the paranoid content providers who worried that someone, somewhere might try to make digital copies. Of course, that has no real affect on the serious pirate duplicators who make dozens of copies. It just fouled it up for the rest of us, who don't make copies or might want to make a copy for our own use. The HDMI organization is just marching to the content provider orders.

Many but not all. Outside of the HDCP issues that are a plenty, in a distributed environment like a matrix switched one, the problem with using the lowest common denominator for audio and video is a real problem IMO, and I don't think that is a HDCP issue (please correct me if I am wrong). I have been using a HD component and SPDIF Autopatch matrix for years with absolutely zero issues, and the matrix can handle video all the way up to 1080P flawlessly even if some of the displays can not. I have a mix of displays and different audio setup in different rooms. In rooms that have 720P and 2 channel audio and the rooms that have 1080P displays with 5.1 audio, everything works every, I mean 100%, of the time. I have all my source equipment set by default to native (restricted to a max of 1080i, because some displays cant deal with scaling down 1080P) and in each room there is some kind of spdif monitor/decoder, some integrated into the displays and others in external DD/DTS receivers. I just send the highest quality signal that all the equipment can receive and I let the local room equipment decode it in to what it can display. This means the 720P plasma with an integrated SPDIF input, takes the 1080i signal scales it to 720P and decodes the DTS onto its 2 channel audio, and it is the same signal that the 1080P plasma with 5.1 receiver system gets, it plays it in glorious 5.1 audio an in deinterlaced 1080P. all of this is running over good old 75 ohm coax with nothing more ever needed besides an occasional BNC to RCA converter, if I need to change a connector type and dont want to put on new ends. Now if you tried to the same thing with HDMI, wow you are in for some fun, first just trying to get both work every time all the time (good luck with that) and you will get the lowest common format, both sides will get 720p 2 channel audio, what good is that, why not just send the data and let the audio and video monitors decode it to the format that equipment can handle. lastly you have the HDMI cable and connector madness, over sensitive and not field terminatable with out some kind of HDMI to catX converter. Why couldn't the HDMI guys just adapted HD-SDI into a consumer version and layered in some encryption to make the insane content providers happy. with HD-SDI, one coax, standard connectors, field terminatable and the underlying standard would of been one designed for video distribution. I have read a few things about HDbaseT, and maybe it will help work out some of these issues, but I doubt it, as I think it uses the underlying HDMI architecture. Regardless this HDMI fiasco looks like a solution looking for a problem designed by a committee who had a strong desire to frustrate consumers with sightly more sophisticated setups of more than one display and piece of equipment, and integrators. The step backwards in just getting a system that just works 100% of the time / or price just to get (or maybe get) HDMI to work work is just not worth the very slight improvement that 1080P can provide.


Well theres my 2 cents for what its worth. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by btmoore
Many but not all. Outside of the HDCP issues that are a plenty, in a distributed environment like a matrix switched one, the problem with using the lowest common denominator for audio and video is a real problem IMO, and I don't think that is a HDCP issue (please correct me if I am wrong). I have been using a HD component and SPDIF Autopatch matrix for years with absolutely zero issues, and the matrix can handle video all the way up to 1080P flawlessly even if some of the displays can not. I have a mix of displays and different audio setup in different rooms. In rooms that have 720P and 2 channel audio and the rooms that have 1080P displays with 5.1 audio, everything works every, I mean 100%, of the time. I have all my source equipment set by default to native (restricted to a max of 1080i, because some displays cant deal with scaling down 1080P) and in each room there is some kind of spdif monitor/decoder, some integrated into the displays and others in external DD/DTS receivers. I just send the highest quality signal that all the equipment can receive and I let the local room equipment decode it in to what it can display. This means the 720P plasma with an integrated SPDIF input, takes the 1080i signal scales it to 720P and decodes the DTS onto its 2 channel audio, and it is the same signal that the 1080P plasma with 5.1 receiver system gets, it plays it in glorious 5.1 audio an in deinterlaced 1080P. all of this is running over good old 75 ohm coax with nothing more ever needed besides an occasional BNC to RCA converter, if I need to change a connector type and dont want to put on new ends. Now if you tried to the same thing with HDMI, wow you are in for some fun, first just trying to get both work every time all the time (good luck with that) and you will get the lowest common format, both sides will get 720p 2 channel audio, what good is that, why not just send the data and let the audio and video monitors decode it to the format that equipment can handle. lastly you have the HDMI cable and connector madness, over sensitive and not field terminatable with out some kind of HDMI to catX converter. Why couldn't the HDMI guys just adapted HD-SDI into a consumer version and layered in some encryption to make the insane content providers happy. with HD-SDI, one coax, standard connectors, field terminatable and the underlying standard would of been one designed for video distribution. I have read a few things about HDbaseT, and maybe it will help work out some of these issues, but I doubt it, as I think it uses the underlying HDMI architecture. Regardless this HDMI fiasco looks like a solution looking for a problem designed by a committee who had a strong desire to frustrate consumers with sightly more sophisticated setups of more than one display and piece of equipment, and integrators. The step backwards in just getting a system that just works 100% of the time / or price just to get (or maybe get) HDMI to work work is just not worth the very slight improvement that 1080P can provide.


Well theres my 2 cents for what its worth. :)
Author deleted comment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts

Quote:
Sure, and there is no logical reason to continue with the analog sunset since AACS and BD+ have been broken but when have the major studios ever backed down on copy protection just because it didn't make sense? As such I wouldn't be surprised if the major studios enforce the AACS licensing terms on the analog sunset even though there is no good reason to do so.

Im sure the threat of a class action lawsuit from an environmental activist group over the issue of structured obsolescence might do something to that end...after all there's very little more necessary for cables to improve with regards to data transfer for audio/video purposes at least. At this point its becoming more and more obvious that companies are beating a dead horse with the hi def audio and video transfer when it is abundantly clear that quality levels have peaked. 1.4a rode in on the idea of putting ethernet into the cable for more data transfer(and justified it's existence with the need to sync 3dtv emitters for glasses with the medium providing the content.), but its becoming more clear that we are coming to a point where somethings gotta give. There will eventually be a consumer backlash and some of these standards are going to go the way of betamax and laserdisc..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by alk3997 /forum/post/0


If anyone from the HDMI Organization is still brave enough to be here, you really should read this article. With all the problems that HDMI still has, why are you forcing this on people with the analog sunset? All you're really accomplishing is to frustrate people and not have them buy new equipment. Really doesn't make sense.

http://www.cepro.com/article/hdmi_14...re_a_pandemic/


Since I doubt anyone from the HDMI Organization really reads this (or cares), I'll leave my comments at that. But, anyone who has to put up with complex HDMI setups really should read the article which is accessable from the AVS Forum.

I read the article and I don't see your point. The article states that it is difficult to run an HDMI cable at full speed for fifty feet. It admits that this is only a problem faced by a small number of consumers, mainly custom installers. And the article goes on to describe solutions for this esoteric problem. But how does this article point out "all the problems that HDMI has," as you claim? It states that HDMI is trouble-free for most consumers. I see one problem stated, along with solutions to it. In fact, the article seems to be an ad for those products which are intended to solve the distance problem.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top